On Wed, Aug 19, 2009 at 9:58 AM, Niclas Hedhman<nic...@hedhman.org> wrote:
> On Wed, Aug 19, 2009 at 7:52 AM, sebb<seb...@gmail.com> wrote: >>> And I don't mean to imply that you are suggesting that a >>> release should be blocked due to that. >>> >> >> Not quite, but I am saying that the release should be blocked until >> the LICENSE file either contains a copy of each different licence or >> has a link to each different license. > > Geez, what a thread, and like Bertrand I have not managed to read > every detail of every opinion. > > So, although I agree that the pointers or full text should be > available in LICENSE/NOTICE, I would approve a podling release IFF the > change has been committed to SVN, i.e. a non-blocking, action-required > item. If any 3rd party license information is missing in its entirety, > then block. > I wonder if its worth reminding that there is no such thing as a veto on releases so releases can not be "blocked" - Votes on whether a package is ready to be released follow a format similar to majority approval -- except that the decision is officially determined solely by whether at least three +1 votes were registered. Releases may not be vetoed. Generally the community will table the vote to release if anyone identifies serious problems, but in most cases the ultimate decision, once three or more positive votes have been garnered, lies with the individual serving as release manager. The specifics of the process may vary from project to project, but the 'minimum of three +1 votes' rule is universal. - http://www.apache.org/foundation/voting.html#ReleaseVotes ...ant --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscr...@incubator.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: general-h...@incubator.apache.org
